Why We Should Work With WotC

[Voadam]

I keep wondering... if the OGL 1.0a was a symbiotic relationship where WotC is benefiting (arguably more than they would from it not existing) just as much as those using it to create and publish professional works... then why not let them revoke it, since it would (by this logic) have business ramifications and repercussions that will be just as bad for WotC as for 3pp (again assuming both parties benefit equally from it)... right?

Because the OGL provides good things for WotC, 3rd party publishers, and D&D players.

If it goes away it hurts all three.

 

[Imaro]

Both Wizards and 3PPs benefit from the OGL 1.0, but I think it would be hard to argue 3PPs don't benefit more from it.

So what benefits would you say WotC is gaining from it... and why would they choose to loose said benefits by revoking it?

 

[Imaro]

Because Hasbro is large enough to absorb that damage and keep going while the smaller publishers are not.

Revoking the OGL will hurt them, even if they don't think it will. But probably not as much as it should.

Hurt them in what way? We don't know what WotC's plans are... and I would assume they believe going in a different direction is more advantageous... whose to say they are wrong?

 

[Jer]

So what benefits would you say WotC is gaining from it... and why would they choose to loose said benefits by revoking it?

Let me turn it around - why did Wizards decide to put out a 5e SRD under the OGL when they didn't have to?

Answer that question and you'll understand the benefit to Wizards that the OGL has been since it was introduced. Because we've been through this dance before where they decided to cut off the OGL for an edition and it was bad enough they had to put the next edition back under it to try to recover from the self inflicted wound.

 

[Voadam]

So what benefits would you say WotC is gaining from it... and why would they choose to loose said benefits by revoking it?

Other companies and people working to make support products for D&D instead of for other games, more people playing the game, and adding to the D&D zeitgeist.

They want more control over the market and the brand and the products. Apparently they want to say being able to stop any product so they can stop hateful content and conduct is more important to them right now than any costs they are incurring.

 

[mamba]

I keep wondering... if the OGL 1.0a was a symbiotic relationship where WotC is benefiting (arguably more than they would from it not existing) just as much as those using it to create and publish professional works... then why not let them revoke it

because while I am perfectly happy with WotC shooting themselves in the foot, I do not think they should be able to shoot everyone else in the foot as well

 

[mamba]

I don't know, he seems pretty cool.

now I do like that animal

 

[Umbran]

What?

They have announced their intention to repudiate the license that the OGL industry and community work off of.

The announcement of a thing is not the thing itself. The intention has not been made reality.

This has taken away the supposedly irrevocable safe harbor of the industry that the industry relied upon.

Not yet, it hasn't. Like, today, WotC cannot walk into a court and sue anyone for using an unauthorized license, because that license hasn't yet been de-authorized.

Indeed, I expect a bunch of 3pp have seen an uptick in sales for the moment, while WotC has likely lost revenue over this. So, those 3pp would have a hard argument that they have taken harm yet.

The industry is reacting, many are moving away from OGL and support for D&D. Industry people are sweating this heavily. Projects are being delayed as this new active legal threat is evaluated.

Risk management is a cost of doing business. Short term, the need to do risk management isn't usually considered direct harm.

In business, harm is usually calculated well after the fact. If, a year from now, Paizo is selling their new ORC-licensed game like gangbusters, raking in the dough, they'd have a hard time making a harm narrative stick.

 

[Imaro]

Let me turn it around - why did Wizards decide to put out a 5e SRD under the OGL when they didn't have to?

Answer that question and you'll understand the benefit to Wizards that the OGL has been since it was introduced. Because we've been through this dance before where they decided to cut off the OGL for an edition and it was bad enough they had to put the next edition back under it to try to recover from the self inflicted wound.

I believe the owner at the time wanted the game to be in a state where it could be perpetually published, regardless of who owned it... so what was the advantage for WotC?

Also I think it's a gross simplification to claim a particular edition failed because it wasn't OGL when there were so many other factors that contributed to that... just saying.

 

[Jer]

because while I am perfectly happy with WotC shooting themselves in the foot, I do not think they should be able to shoot everyone else in the foot as well

What's more they're a giant who is using a normal pistol in this scenario.

They have plenty more hit points to absorb that shot than the other folks they're shooting.